Subscribe

June 17, 2016

Romans Prescribes the Gospel, Not Execution

TheNew York Times claims that Romans 1 calls for the execution of gays. A Republican congressman read the passage at a committee hearing. I don’t know the congressman’s purpose, but it couldn’t be to call for the execution of gays because the passage doesn’t say that. And 2,000 years of Christian teaching has never taught that it does.

It tells us we’re all sinners deserving punishment, but the only execution referred to in Romans is that of Jesus, who took the punishment Romans 1 is speaking of on behalf of sinners so that sinners can be reconciled to Him.

The relevant passage, Romans 1:18-32, begins: “For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth.” All ungodliness. Romans isn’t singling out gays, though homosexuality is mentioned. So are many other sins:

They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. Though they know God's righteous decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them.

No one can read that passage and walk away scot-free because we’ve all committed at least some of those sins, and maybe all. Some of these sins are universally common – disobedient to parents – because Paul means to count every single one of us as sinners so that we will look to the Savior who won a pardon for us.

Matthew Henry’s commentary, a very mainstream study of Romans, explains that the wrath spoken of here is God’s focused on all sin. Christians identify themselves as the subjects of this passage because we are sinners. Paul’s point in writing this is to point to Jesus. Romans 3:21-25:

But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it—the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith.

There is no distinction. All of us have fallen short. And whose actual death has offered redemption to make the spiritual death spoken of in Romans 1 unnecessary? Jesus.

Christians make no claims about sinners that we aren’t making of ourselves – and we aren’t calling for our own execution. Rather, we make the same appeal Paul makes here – to accept Jesus’ sacrifice and be reconciled with God and receive spiritual life.

Sure, it’s understandable to get angry about an article like this. But that’s not constructive. It’s also grievous that the Gospel can be so misunderstood. A constructive response to this is to recommit ourselves to communicating the Gospel as clearly as we can and living in a way that commends the message and glorifies the Savior.

I was praying about it this morning, asking God that instead of turning ugly, this could actually be a new opening to the Gospel, as it comes under attack, that people will see what Christians have to say and we would be faithful and clear to tell them.

The fundamental differences which we find in the terminus of explanation as to the immutable value of, reality of, and timeless worth of each and every human being when it comes to *pantheism and *non-theism / materialism and *Islam and *Christianity end within.... in all but the last.... a landscape that is factually alien to our notion of the irreducible essence of self-giving.

In the end the children learn of the Noble Lies, and do what we all do when we discover that our parents have in fact deceived us.

Another example of shoddy journalism. Gain only enough of the story to produce opinion and edit out all the portions which give the full story.

Context matters. The NYT should do better research and at least examine the logical flow Paul presented.
1). God holds wrath for the lifestyle with which the sinful world is enraptured (Chap One)
2). God judges all, even those whose religiosity presents them as morally pristine and outstanding (Chap. 2:1-16 ; note "All have sinned ... 2: 12)
3). Old Testament dependency on moral righteousness based on adherence to the Mosaic Law leads to failure. True spiritual Israel needs an alternative to a perfect righteousness. (Chap. 2:17-29)
4). If you haven't figured it out by now, all people are hardened, incorrigible sinners. (Chap 3: 1-20)
5). Sinners have redemption in Christ. Paul's Introduction to Gospel. (Chap 3: 21-31)
6). Beginnings of understanding Gospel as divine promise, as we see in the example of Abraham (Chap. 4)

And so we have a proper display of Law preparing one for the salvation declared in the Gospel. Both go together. Law without Gospel is horror. Gospel without Law is meaningless bather.

(1) Modern society generally doesn't believe that any crime is sufficiently disruptive to society to invite execution. In contrast, pre-modern civilisations were much more willing to use severe punishments.

It's not as if homosexual behaviour was somehow a unique capital crime in the ancient world.

There's also a distinction between divine judgement and capital punishment. All sin is rebellion, and brings spiritual death. But few and far between are the societies that decree capital punishment for any and every social transgression. There were capital crimes in theocratic Israel, but the punishment for most crimes was restitution plus a fine, and sin was dealt with via temple sacrifice.

(2) Our society refuses to acknowledge the social destructiveness of free sexuality. Sexual reproduction is fundamental to a multi-generational society, and thus society has a vested interest in regulating it. "Me, now" is a moral benchmark that can only lead to destruction.

The current presenting issue is homosexuality. But the core issue is the contraceptive culture and the wedge being driven between family and sexuality. And this is why there is a convergence between Marxism and the free sex culture: both exalt the state and the now against tradition and the inheritance of culture.

This might sound odd, but Christians engaging in cultural preservation and reform should avoid talking about gays, specifically. Allowing the conversation to focus on homosexuality is like discussing a runny nose while you're running a 41 degree (Celsius) fever - it's a minor symptom of a far more critical problem. Every time we are invited to comment on homosexuality, we should critique the free sex culture instead.

Ancient societies understood this, which was why breaching sexual mores was often a capital crime. Even though Greek culture tolerated a degree of pederasty and homosexuality, there were rigid social boundaries in which this could be practiced and severe penalties for crossing them. The only social boundary our society wants to recognise is "consent", and even that is practiced inconsistently.